Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al
Filing
803
ORDER RESOLVING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, VACATING HEARING, AND FIXING COMPENSATION re 787 , 789 Reports.. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 9, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
RAHINAH IBRAHIM,
10
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
12
13
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
ORDER RESOLVING OBJECTIONS,
ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, VACATING
HEARING, AND FIXING COMPENSATION
Defendants.
/
14
15
16
No. C 06-00545 WHA
INTRODUCTION
At long last, this protracted satellite litigation over attorney’s fees and expenses comes to
17
an end, save and except for the pending appeal regarding attorney’s fees and expenses. A prior
18
order held that plaintiff was entitled to some but not all of the grossly excessive fees and expenses
19
sought. The special master then issued a report and recommendation regarding the amount of the
20
award. This order resolves the pending objections and adopts the special master’s report and
21
recommendation in its entirety.
22
23
STATEMENT
The history of this action has been summarized in prior orders and will not be repeated
24
herein (Dkt. Nos. 682, 739). In pertinent part, in January 2014, plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees
25
and expenses. There were at least three defects with plaintiff’s motion. First, in violation of our
26
district’s local rules, plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet-and-confer prior to filing the motion.
27
This alone was grounds to deny the motion. Second, no detailed spreadsheets or invoices
28
supporting the expenses sought were appended to the motion. This was grounds to deny the
expenses sought. Third, plaintiff’s counsel referred to a confidential settlement conference in
1
violation of our local rules. In sum, even though it was a close call whether to deny counsel an
2
award based on these violations, plaintiff’s counsel were nevertheless permitted to proceed,
3
spawning this massive satellite litigation.
4
Following full briefing, supplemental submissions, and oral argument, an April 2014 order
5
determined counsel’s entitlement to fees and expenses. Counsel were entitled to some but not all
6
of the grossly excessive fees and expenses sought. A companion order required counsel to file
7
revised declarations in accordance with the April 2014 order (Dkt. Nos. 715, 718, 739, 740).
8
9
This was not done. Plaintiff’s counsel first requested an extension, which was granted.
Counsel then re-filed their declarations seeking all fees and expenses previously sought and added
more to their demand. In total, counsel sought $3.88 million in fees under market rates and
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
$327,826 in expenses. A June 2014 order gave counsel one more chance to comply
12
(Dkt. No. 758).
13
Counsel refused. Counsel stubbornly insisted on “the full amount of her requested
14
attorney’s fees” and filed notices of appeal regarding fees, expenses, and costs. Counsel then
15
filed three motions for reconsideration, which upon review, were denied. A special master was
16
appointed, after the parties were given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
17
The special master was ordered to file a written report regarding the amount of fees and expenses
18
to be awarded. The special master, of course, could not revisit the entitlement rulings.
19
The special master reviewed the parties’ submissions and relevant orders, allowed
20
supplemental submissions, and heard oral argument. In pertinent part, plaintiff’s counsel
21
continued to insist on “100% of their fees.” Counsel also asked for “additional fees” incurred
22
since May 2014, which were actually fees-on-fees-on-fees. The special master then filed a
23
117-page report regarding attorney’s fees and a sixteen-page report regarding expenses. In short,
24
plaintiff’s counsel sought $1.76 million in attorney’s fees (or more than $3.88 million under
25
market rates) and $293,860 in expenses. The government argued that no more than $232,550 in
26
attorney’s fees and $21,080 in expenses were due. The special master recommended an award of
27
$419,987.36 in attorney’s fees and $34,768.71 in expenses (Dkt. Nos. 787, 789). The parties had
28
until October 2 to file objections, not to exceed ten pages.
2
1
Both sides filed objections. Plaintiff’s counsel, however, filed two ten-page briefs and
2
voluminous exhibits. Both sides filed responses. Notably, the government moved to strike all of
3
plaintiff’s objections for failure to comply with the page limits.
4
Now, the time for filings regarding the special master’s report has elapsed. Having read
5
the special master’s report and recommendation and the parties’ submissions, this order finds as
6
follows.
7
ANALYSIS
8
1.
9
All of counsel for plaintiff’s improper objections are OVERRULED.
First, plaintiff’s counsel object to the appointment of a special master because she “did
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
IMPROPER OBJECTIONS.
not preside over or attend the trial.” Procedurally, this objection has been waived. The deadline
12
to object to a special master was in April and no objection was timely made. Accordingly, the
13
special master was appointed pursuant to Rule 53 and 54, after notice and an opportunity to be
14
heard. Moreover, substantively, this objection makes no sense. There is no evidence that the
15
special master lacked “familiarity” with the case, especially since she reviewed the parties’
16
voluminous submissions and heard oral argument.
17
Second, plaintiff’s counsel vaguely object to the “procedures” set forth in the April, June,
18
and July orders. That is, the procedures for the special master and the orders to file revised
19
declarations. No authority is provided for this objection, other than the bald argument that the
20
“procedures” ordered resulted in “duplicative work” and forced them to “cut fees.” Not so.
21
Plaintiff’s counsel never complied with the entitlement order, requiring the special master to sift
22
through hundreds of pages of briefing, spreadsheets, and invoices to determine which fees and
23
expenses were recoverable. This task was rendered even more difficult because the spreadsheets
24
were “without formulas,” even though a native production was ordered. Moreover, plaintiff’s
25
counsel never “cut fees,” other than to excise $462,470 for a whopping $3.88 million demand.
26
Third, plaintiff’s counsel object to the special master’s “errors” in failing to award fees for
27
non-recoverable tasks. For example, counsel argue that “the Special Master erred in denying
28
recovery for work done in support of the Equal Protection and First Amendment claims.”
3
1
Plaintiff did not prevail on these claims. Counsel also argue that the special master erred in
2
failing to award fees for visa issues, post-2012 standing issues, and privilege issues. Counsel are
3
wrong. The special master could not (and did not) revisit the entitlement rulings.
4
Fourth, plaintiff’s counsel ignored the page limits. The July 2014 order stated that the
5
objections were not to exceed ten pages. Plaintiff’s counsel filed 255 pages: two ten-page briefs,
6
a 234-page declaration with exhibits, and a one-page “statement.” This was not a good faith
7
effort to comply with the page limits. Indeed, no motion for a page extension was filed.
page limits. That motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. As a sanction for violating
10
the page limits, docket number 793 (brief regarding expenses) is hereby STRICKEN. Counsel for
11
For the Northern District of California
The government moves to strike all of plaintiff’s objections for failure to comply with the
9
United States District Court
8
plaintiff will not be allowed to “reincorporate” in her response her “previous” objections
12
regarding expenses. Pages eight through ten of her response (Dkt. No. 799) are hereby
13
STRICKEN. No objections to the special master’s report regarding expenses are preserved
14
because counsel failed to abide by the rules. It would be unfair to retain these objections when
15
the government made an effort to fit all objections within ten pages.
16
In sum, all of plaintiff’s improper objections are OVERRULED.
17
2.
18
For the reasons stated herein, all of the remaining objections by plaintiff’s counsel are
19
20
REMAINING OBJECTIONS BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL.
OVERRULED.
First, plaintiff’s counsel object to the special master’s reductions for needless duplication,
21
excessive conferencing, and lack of billing judgment. For example, plaintiff’s counsel sought
22
fees for three attorneys conferencing regarding “status and plan.” Time billed by the third, more
23
senior, attorney was excised by the special master. This order adopts all of the special master’s
24
recommendations and finds that she properly reduced many of the grossly overbroad sums
25
demanded by plaintiff’s counsel.
26
Second, plaintiff’s counsel object to the special master’s reductions for block-billing and
27
vague entries. The special master did not err in finding these line items improper, excessive,
28
and/or inadequately detailed. Plaintiff’s counsel also argue that to the extent the special master
4
1
could not “infer” information from the surrounding entries, “she could have requested further
2
clarification.” This argument is misplaced. It was counsel for plaintiff’s burden to submit
3
sufficient proof in January 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to do so. They were given a second
4
chance to revise their declarations in April. They again failed to do so. They were given a third
5
chance in June. They refused. They were then given an opportunity to work with the special
6
master to calculate the proper amount of recoverable fees. They stubbornly insisted on “100% of
7
their fees.” To now blame the special master for not requesting “further clarification” is utterly
8
misguided.
all of the relevant line items, that no fees-on-fees-on-fees be awarded. No authority is provided
11
For the Northern District of California
Third, plaintiff’s counsel object to the special master’s recommendation, after reviewing
10
United States District Court
9
for this objection. Plaintiff’s counsel only baldly assert that “[t]he Special Master declined to
12
award plaintiff fees for work done since May 2014. This was improper. Plaintiff requests that
13
the Court award her these fees.” This order finds the special master’s recommendation
14
reasonable and finds that those amounts were properly omitted.
15
In sum, all of counsel for plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
16
3.
17
For the reasons stated herein, all of the government’s objections are OVERRULED.
18
First, the government argues that no fees and expenses should be awarded “given
OBJECTIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT.
19
Plaintiff’s counsel’s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s entitlement order . . . and her
20
untimely and insufficiently documented request for expenses.” All will recognize that plaintiff’s
21
counsel repeatedly disregarded the rules. In such circumstances, it would be justified to refuse to
22
enter an award. Nevertheless, counsel were permitted to proceed, spawning this second major
23
litigation which included three motions for reconsideration and hours-upon-hours spent sifting
24
through voluminous submissions. Discretion has been exercised to award some but not all of the
25
massive sum demanded. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983).
26
Second, the government takes issue with some of the special master’s percentages and
27
amounts. For some items, the government argues that only 33 percent of the amount requested
28
should be awarded instead of the fifty percent recommended. For other items, the government
5
1
argues that no fees should be awarded instead of the sixteen percent recommended. For items
2
associated with Professor Kahn, the government argues that no fees should be awarded on
3
account of plaintiff’s “uncooperative behavior” during discovery. The government also argues
4
that certain mileage and subpoena expenses should not be awarded because plaintiff’s discovery
5
efforts were only partially successful or those depositions never occurred. Upon review of the
6
special master’s report, this order finds that the special master properly considered the
7
recoverable items and those so inextricably intertwined.
8
9
Third, the government objects to recovery for any “vague” entries. For example, the
government argues that plaintiff made no effort to provide detailed descriptions for some line
items beyond “[p]repare for trial.” The government also argues that no fees should be awarded
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
for “client communication” without a “showing that the activity for which plaintiff seeks to tax
12
the Government is compensable.” Plaintiff’s counsel respond that the government was not
13
entitled to privileged information. Upon review of the special master’s report, this order finds
14
that the special master properly awarded the recoverable amounts.
15
Fourth, to determine the amount of fees-on-fees, the government argues that the special
16
master should have multiplied the fees recovered by the percentage of merits fees initially sought
17
($3.5 million) instead of the $1.6 million sought under the EAJA. This order finds that the special
18
master properly calculated the fees-on-fees amount, even though this order recognizes that
19
plaintiff’s counsel continue to demand all fees under market rates.
20
In sum, all of the government’s objections are OVERRULED.
21
4.
22
A prior order appointed Attorney Gina Moon as the special master. As a service to the
SPECIAL MASTER’S FEES AND EXPENSES.
23
Court and to save the parties expense, she agreed to cap her hourly rate at $200 per hour. She has
24
submitted an invoice for $ 27,481.50 in fees and expenses. The time for filing objections has
25
elapsed. Neither side objected to the entries on her invoice. This order finds that the special
26
master’s fees and expenses are reasonable. Pursuant to Rule 53(g), the special master’s
27
compensation is hereby FIXED.
28
6
1
The parties only dispute the allocation of the special master’s fees. This order finds that
2
plaintiff’s counsel shall pay 75% of the special master’s fees, save for one exception, as a
3
sanction for counsel’s failure to meet-and-confer before filing their motion, their obstinate refusal
4
to file revised declarations in accordance with the entitlement order, and their disregard for the
5
page limits. The exception is that plaintiff’s counsel shall pay 100% of the special master’s fees
6
for work done on the fees-on-fees-on-fees demand.
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, all objections are hereby OVERRULED. The special master’s
report and recommendation is hereby ADOPTED IN FULL. The November 20 hearing is hereby
VACATED (Dkt. Nos. 787, 789).
Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel are hereby awarded $419,987.36 in attorney’s fees and
$34,768.71 in expenses. The special master’s compensation of $ 27,481.50 is hereby FIXED.
To ensure that the special master is promptly paid for her services, the payment procedure
14
shall be as follows. The government shall promptly send a check to the special master for 100%
15
of her fees. The government shall then subtract all of this amount (minus its portion of the special
16
master’s fees) from the amount to be paid to plaintiff’s counsel. The remainder is the amount due
17
plaintiff’s counsel. All payments shall be made by OCTOBER 30, unless there is a timely appeal
18
by either side in which the payments shall be made when all appeals are finally ended with no
19
follow up required. The parties shall file a joint status report by NOON ON OCTOBER 31, 2014.
20
This motion for attorney’s fees and expenses involved a Herculean task. The Court
21
extends its highest compliments and thanks Attorney Gina Moon for her excellent service and
22
willingness to serve at a reduced rate.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: October 9, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?